Effect of Ammonium Sulfate Additive on the Efficacy of Nicosulfuron Herbicide in Corn

Subject Areas : Journal of Crop Ecophysiology

Sajjad Ghaedi Kachooee ¹ , Mehdi Madandoust ^{2 *}

1 - Agriculture College, Fasa Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fasa, Iran
2 - Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Fasa Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fasa, Iran

Received: 2021-06-25 Accepted : 2022-07-17 Published : 2022-09-07

Keywords: Adjuvants, Cruz, Maize, Model, Yield,

Abstract :

In order to investigate the relationship between the effect of the applied doses of the herbicide of Nicosulfuron and the additive of Ammonium Sulfate on weed control and grain yield of corn (Zea mays L. Sc.704), an experiment was conducted on a farm in Fasa region, Fars, Iran in 2019 and 2020as factorial in randomized complete block design. Assuming the effect of the year is random. The experimental factors included herbicide (Nicosulfuron) (As doses of 0, 30, 50, 70, 90g the active ingredient in hectare) and the additive of Ammonium Sulfate (as 0, 2.5 and 5%). In order to describe the relationship between doses of herbicide and biomass of the weeds in each of the three levels of Ammonium Sulfate, the Logistic 3 parameters model was used and to describe the relationship between the biomass of the weeds and the levels of herbicide doses and Ammonium Sulfate, the Lorentzian 4 parameters model was used. The results showed that the use of Nicosulfuron reduced the dry weight of all weeds and with the use of Ammonium Sulfate, the dry weight loss of weeds was intensified. The effective dose for controlling half of the Chenopodium album was lower than for other weeds. Ammonium Sulfate, as an additive, was able to improve the performance of Nicosulfuron to increase the chlorophyll index, photosynthesis rate and grain yield components. Consumption of slightly more than 60g Nicosulfuron as a mixture with Ammonium Sulfate increased the yield by 2.5 to 10.5%, and by consuming 70g Nicosulfuron, the biological yield increased to 24500kg.ha 1.

References:

• Abrams, P.A., C. Rueffler, and R. Dinnage. 2008. Competition-similarity relationships and the nonlinearity of competitive effects in consumer resource systems. The American Naturalist. 172(4): 463-474.
• Andr, J., V. Hejnák, M. Jursík, and V. Fendrychová. 2014. Effects of application terms of three soil active herbicides on herbicide efficacy and reproductive ability for weeds in maize. Plant Soil Environment. 60(10): 452-458.
• Andrew, I.K.S., and J. Storkey. 2017. Using simulation models to investigate the cumulative effects of sowing rate, sowing date and cultivar choice on weed competition. Crop Protection. 95: 109-115.
• Baker, C., I.C. Madakadze, C.M. Swanepoel, and Z. Mavunganidze. 2018. Weed species composition and density under conservation agriculture with varying fertiliser rate. South African Journal of Plant and Soil. 35(5): 329-336.
• Chandini, R.K., R. Kumar, and O. Prakash. 2019. The impact of chemical fertilizers on our environment and ecosystem. Research Trends in Environmental Sciences, Edition: 2nd, Chapter. 5: 9-86.
• Dahmardeh, A., A. Shahriari, M. Pahlavan Rad, A. Shabani, and M. Ghorbani. 2021. Modeling wheat yield using some soil properties at the field scale (Case study: Sistan dam research farm, university of Zabol. Agricultural Engineering. 44(1): 81-95. (In Persian).
• Dong, H., Z. Yao, X. Zheng, and B. Mei. 2011. Effect of ammonium-based, non-sulfate fertilizers on CH4 emissions from a paddy field with a typical Chinese water management regime. Atmospheric Environ. 45(5): 1095-1101.
• Dong, T., J. Shang, J.M. Chen, J. Liu, B. Qian, B. Ma, M.J. Morrison, C. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Shi, H. Pan, and G., Zhou. 2019. Assessment of portable chlorophyll meters for measuring crop leaf chlorophyll concentration. Remote Sensing. 11: 1-20.
• Gaba, S., E. Gabriel, J. Chadœuf, F. Bonneu, and V. Bretagnolle. 2016. Herbicides do not ensure for higher wheat yield, but eliminate rare plant species. Science Reports. 6: 30112.
• Gardarin, A., C. Dürr, and N. Colbach. 2012. Modeling the dynamics and emergence of a multispecies weed seed bank with species traits. Ecology Modelling. 240: 123-138.
• Godar, A.S., V.K. Varanasi, S. Nakka, P.V. Prasad, C.R. Thompson, and J. Mithila. 2015. Physiological and molecular mechanisms of differential sensitivity of palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to mesotrione at varying growth temperatures. PloS One. 10(5): e0126731.
• Guanjun, H., Y. Yang, L. Zhu, S. Peng, and Y. Li. 2021. Temperature responses of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance in rice and wheat plants. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 300: 108322.
• Hofman, V. 2018. Spray equipment and calibration. North Dakota State University. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/crops/spray-equipment-and-calibration. March. 2018.
• Holst, N., I.A. Rasmussen, and L. Bastiaans. 2007. Field weed population dynamics: A review of model approaches and applications. Weed Research. 47(1): 1-14.
• Johnson, B.C., and B.G. Young. 2002. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of Mesotrione. Weed Science. 50(2): 157-161.
• Jones, J.W., J.M. Antle, B. Basso, and T.R. Wheeler. 2017. Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agricultural System. 155: 269-288.
• Kaur, S., L.M. Schwartz-Lazaro, R. Werle, and S. Cordeau. 2021. Integrated weed management for reduced weed infestations in sustainable cropping systems. Frontiers in Agronomy. 5: 1301564.
• Khan, I.A., G. Hassan, N. Malik, R. Khan, H. Khan, and S.A. Khan. 2016. Effect of herbicides on yield and yield components of hybrid maize (Zea mays). Planta Daninha. 34(4): 729-736.
• Kim, D.S., E.J.P. Marshall, J.C. Caseley, and P. Brain. 2006. Modelling interactions between herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer in terms of weed response. Weed Research. 46: 480-491.
• Matzenbacher, F.O., R.A. Vidal, J.R. Merotto, and M.M. Trezzi. 2014. Environmental and physiological factors that affect the efficacy of herbicides that inhibit the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase: a literature review. Planta Daninha. 32(2): 457-463.
• Mc Giffen, M., A. Shrestha, and S.A. Fennimore. 2014. Chemical control methods. California Weed Science Society (Pub). 89-133.
• Park, S.E., L.R. Benjamin, and A.R. Watkinson. 2003. The theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective. Annual Botany. 92(6): 741-748.
• Ramsey, R.J.L., G.R. Stephenson, and J.C. Hall. 2005. A review of the effect of humidity, humectants, and surfactant composition on the absorption and efficacy of highly water soluble herbicide. Journal of Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. 82(2): 162-175.
• Soltani, N., R.E. Nurse, D. Robinson, and P.H. Sikkema. 2011. Effect of ammonium sulfate and water hardness on glyphosate and glufosinate activity in corn. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 91(6): 1053-1059.
• Travlos, I., N. Cheimona, and D. Bilalis. 2017.Glyphosate efficacy of different salt formulations and adjuvant additives on various weeds. Agronomy. 7(3): 60- 69.
• Zhang, J., O. Jaeck, A. Menegat, Z. Zhang, R. Gerhards, and H. Ni. 2013. The mechanism of methylated seed oil on enhancing biological efficacy of Topramezone on weeds. PLoS One. 8(9): 74280.
• Zhou, Q., W. Liu, Y. Zhang, and K.K. Liu. 2007. Action mechanisms of Acetolactate synthase- inhibiting herbicides. Journal of Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. 89(2): 89-96.